Forum rule #1. If you are going to do a comparison (no matter what it is) then you are going to get arguments from others unless you are a world famous person and then you will just get arguments behind your back.

Personally, when I buy gear that I don't like then I just sell it or return it. We all know that not everything is as good in real life as it is on paper.

For the record, I sold my 1Ds2 and 1Ds3 for newer bodies like the 1D4 and 1DX. To this day, my 1Ds2 produced more interesting images with my 85L than any other camera. Not scientific, but certainly noticeable in my eyes (and some of my clients').

I shot with the 1DS2 for years and upgraded to the 5D3 so I have the same exact experience that you have with the bodies. A couple of things...

IF you only have to shoot at ISO 100 then your 1DS2 takes fantastic images. No doubt about it. IF you have to bump your ISO above 400 the images SUCK in comparison. At 1600 they are a complete mess. The 5D3 at 6400 is way better than the 1DS2 at 1600. There are other things that are hugely different as well.

Better screen on the back of the camera by far which in the real work world I need to see if I got the shot I need at a shoot for my clients.

Much better interface, The 1DS2 had the worst interface ever with the strange 2 button controls for everything.

Live view

Video

more frames per second

Better dynamic range

The list goes on and on.

The other thing is maybe you need to try a different program to edit your RAW files in. The 1DS2 had a VERY soft out of the camera file because of the high pass filter they put on it. The files sharpened up extremely well in PS but they NEEDED it badly. I would try to do more tests with a different software and also change up your lens. Maybe your lens is calibrated perfectly to your 1DS2 but off a little when mounted on your 5D3. The sensor is not "Sharper" on the older camera. Trust me.

The other thing that is quite noticeable in your test is that the 5D3 shots are exposed brighter in EVERY instance. The test would certainly be more accurate if you match exposure. The settings are irrelevant. Its the final image exposure that matters. Need to compare apples to apples.

At the end of the day if you are are only shooting studio work or landscapes at ISO 100 you would never see the detail difference anyway unless you are pixel peeping. PRINT the images out at 24x36 after making them both look the best they can. Don't limit the sharpening, contrast, etc of one to what you do to the other. That is not what you would do in the real world. You would optimize each image individually for it's intended output. Do that and then lets look and see if the 1DS2 is a better camera. I doubt it. I loved that camera for years and I do love the way the images look from it. That said the sensors are much improved since then and there is more to a camera than a sensor.

I shot with the 1DS2 for years and upgraded to the 5D3 so I have the same exact experience that you have with the bodies. A couple of things...

IF you only have to shoot at ISO 100 then your 1DS2 takes fantastic images. No doubt about it. IF you have to bump your ISO above 400 the images SUCK in comparison. At 1600 they are a complete mess. The 5D3 at 6400 is way better than the 1DS2 at 1600. There are other things that are hugely different as well.

Better screen on the back of the camera by far which in the real work world I need to see if I got the shot I need at a shoot for my clients.

Much better interface, The 1DS2 had the worst interface ever with the strange 2 button controls for everything.

Live view

Video

more frames per second

Better dynamic range

The list goes on and on.

The other thing is maybe you need to try a different program to edit your RAW files in. The 1DS2 had a VERY soft out of the camera file because of the high pass filter they put on it. The files sharpened up extremely well in PS but they NEEDED it badly. I would try to do more tests with a different software and also change up your lens. Maybe your lens is calibrated perfectly to your 1DS2 but off a little when mounted on your 5D3. The sensor is not "Sharper" on the older camera. Trust me.

The other thing that is quite noticeable in your test is that the 5D3 shots are exposed brighter in EVERY instance. The test would certainly be more accurate if you match exposure. The settings are irrelevant. Its the final image exposure that matters. Need to compare apples to apples.

At the end of the day if you are are only shooting studio work or landscapes at ISO 100 you would never see the detail difference anyway unless you are pixel peeping. PRINT the images out at 24x36 after making them both look the best they can. Don't limit the sharpening, contrast, etc of one to what you do to the other. That is not what you would do in the real world. You would optimize each image individually for it's intended output. Do that and then lets look and see if the 1DS2 is a better camera. I doubt it. I loved that camera for years and I do love the way the images look from it. That said the sensors are much improved since then and there is more to a camera than a sensor.

Here are two 100% crops... Scroll them to the right to see those windows with white blinds:real usable detail in 16.7mp 1Ds MkII files,mushy moire in 22mp 5D MkIII files.

If you down-res the the 5DIII photo to match the 16.7mp of the 1DsII, it will look sharper. Or enlarge the 1DsII image to match the 22mp of the 5DIII and it will look less sharp. The 5DIII is presenting a bigger image of the same scene, so it looks less sharp. If you had a 36mp photo of the same scene and viewed it at 100%, it would look even less sharp. Also the unfortunate moire effect in the 5DIII photo is usually a result of greater resolution, not less.

This really makes no sense.

If I have tiny real details and texture in the white blinds on the windows in 1DsII sampleand I only have moire in the 5DIII sample,

why do you think that just by downsampling the 5DIII file to 1DsII file size, the detail that is not present in the 5DIII file will magically appear,...or that just by upsampling the 1DsII file to 5DIII file size, the visible detail in the 1DsII file will magically disappear?

The resolved details are present in the files or they are not.

You can just try what you have suggested - use the crops that i have posted above, resize them both way to match each other and see if the lost details will appear in 5DIII file when you downsize it, or if the fine resolved details will dissapear from 1Ds file by upsizing it.

Except for the moire effect, I don't see detail in the 1DsII image that isn't in the 5DIII image. Moire is a problem, but you are mistaking moire for lower resolution. Moire results from interference between detail in the scene and the grid of pixels in the sensor. It is more likely to occur with higher resolution. Higher resolution cameras such as the D800E are a magnet for moire, much more so than say the original 12mp 5D.

It is fact that when you view both images at 100%, the 5DIII is presenting a bigger image of the same scene. If you could compare the original 12mp 5D to the 22mp 5DIII, both at 100%, the original 5D would undoubtedly look crisper. This is a fact of life of higher resolution cameras: as the resolution gets higher, the images look less crisp if you keep looking at them at 100%.

Perhaps the conclusion could just be that Canon has been making great cameras for years, and when they announce/ release a new model they aren't forcing everyone to go run out and upgrade! They NEED to keep releasing new models to stay current with technology advancement, competition and to continue to market the "new" to new buyers.

There is no crime in shooting with an older camera and then upgrading when YOU need to, not when Canon releases an update.

Fighting about a few extra pixels in the corner of a frame at 100% is a waste of time.

Nothing awful about it. For my part I've decided long ago that the weight of 1d-based system was not for me but i still have my 1ds2 and although i jumped to d800 this season i still go for my ds2 rather than my 5d2s when i feel like Canon. I dont have any experience with the ds3 but my feeling is that nothing much has changed in Canon's IQ <400iso since ds2 release 8-9 years ago. Shows how far ahead was back then and how stale is now in this particular sector...

I truly loved my 1DsII. It was a sad day when I sold it. I always loved the images that came out of it. I'm finding the 1DsIII is very similar in most ways just with 4-5 more MPs. Even ISO performance is similar. I didn't/don't like to shoot either over 800.

The 5DIII with similar low ISO performance and amazing high ISO performance make it an incredible all around performer. There are a handful of reasons I went with 1DsIII instead of a second 5DIII, better flash metering, spot metering, better metering in general and build quality.

Now I'm really confused. Last week there were countless threads about 1DsIII vs 5D mkIII, now people are saying the 1DsII is the ultimate camera for shooting buildings and cropping 100% for the web???

I really don't know what to buy now, I was gonna go with 2 1DX's because I hate the ugly-turny-knobby-dial™ on top of the disgusting-overpriced-toy™ of a camera (5DmkIII), and I figured I'd get 2 cause I have 2 hands...

Perhaps I'll just switch to the Dark Side™ and get a D3200. DxO must love those cause they are paid by Sony-Sensored-Nikon™

I shot with the 1DS2 for years and upgraded to the 5D3 so I have the same exact experience that you have with the bodies. A couple of things...

IF you only have to shoot at ISO 100 then your 1DS2 takes fantastic images. No doubt about it. IF you have to bump your ISO above 400 the images SUCK in comparison. At 1600 they are a complete mess. The 5D3 at 6400 is way better than the 1DS2 at 1600. There are other things that are hugely different as well.

Better screen on the back of the camera by far which in the real work world I need to see if I got the shot I need at a shoot for my clients.

Much better interface, The 1DS2 had the worst interface ever with the strange 2 button controls for everything.

Live view

Video

more frames per second

Better dynamic range

The list goes on and on.

The other thing is maybe you need to try a different program to edit your RAW files in. The 1DS2 had a VERY soft out of the camera file because of the high pass filter they put on it. The files sharpened up extremely well in PS but they NEEDED it badly. I would try to do more tests with a different software and also change up your lens. Maybe your lens is calibrated perfectly to your 1DS2 but off a little when mounted on your 5D3. The sensor is not "Sharper" on the older camera. Trust me.

The other thing that is quite noticeable in your test is that the 5D3 shots are exposed brighter in EVERY instance. The test would certainly be more accurate if you match exposure. The settings are irrelevant. Its the final image exposure that matters. Need to compare apples to apples.

At the end of the day if you are are only shooting studio work or landscapes at ISO 100 you would never see the detail difference anyway unless you are pixel peeping. PRINT the images out at 24x36 after making them both look the best they can. Don't limit the sharpening, contrast, etc of one to what you do to the other. That is not what you would do in the real world. You would optimize each image individually for it's intended output. Do that and then lets look and see if the 1DS2 is a better camera. I doubt it. I loved that camera for years and I do love the way the images look from it. That said the sensors are much improved since then and there is more to a camera than a sensor.

Happy shooting!

Thank you for bringing a little perspective to this old fight. There's a lot more to a camera than its ability to shoot a specific scene at 100 ISO. (And most cameras that have been released over the past 5 or 6 years, including my original 5d can do an awfully good job of that).

Now I'm really confused. Last week there were countless threads about 1DsIII vs 5D mkIII, now people are saying the 1DsII is the ultimate camera for shooting buildings and cropping 100% for the web???

I really don't know what to buy now, I was gonna go with 2 1DX's because I hate the ugly-turny-knobby-dial™ on top of the disgusting-overpriced-toy™ of a camera (5DmkIII), and I figured I'd get 2 cause I have 2 hands...

Perhaps I'll just switch to the Dark Side™ and get a D3200. DxO must love those cause they are paid by Sony-Sensored-Nikon™

Forum rule #2: Everybody has an opinion; very few people embrace contradictions to that opinion. Some (about 1%)of the opinions are broad based and will apply to all users. Very few posters have a broad technical understanding of photography, and they don't really need to. Relying on what you "feel" from looking at your photography has proven to not be very accurate in determining photography physics, it does, however, make a good basis for your personal purchases. Your best personal purchases are rarely the best purchase for another user.